Appeals Court -- January 12, 2012
Facts: While Trooper Demos was meeting up with Trooper Keane at a parking lot by Route 27, they observed a vehicle containing three occupants who were making furtive movements. The defendant was in the back seat while Peter Le was in the driver’s seat and Ren Pho was in the passenger’s seat. They were stopped by the Troppers as soon as they got on Route 27. When Demos approached the vehicle, he smelled marijuana. He then asked Le for his license and registration. Meanwhile, Demos noticed Pho seemed nervous and placed his hands where Demos could not see. Demos then asked Pho to step out of the vehicle to be patted down. Demos discovered Pho was carrying a .38 caliber Beretta pistol, which was seized by Demos at this point.
While Demos tried to put Pho on the ground, the defendant fled and ran across Route 27. Demos ordered the defendant to stop several time. As the defendant was running into a parking lot across Route 27, he reached into his pocket for a gun. The defendant pointed the gun at Demos while Demos ordered him to drop the gun. Demos fired twice after the defendant refused to drop the gun. The defendant continued to point the gun at Demos and Demos fired again, which knocked the defendant down. Defendant then put the gun in his pocket and raised his hand. Demos removed a .38 caliber Colt pistol from the defendant. There was no rounds in the chamber but there was ammunition in the clip. During the arrest, the defendant kept repeating “I’ll beat this, I’ll beat this again.”
Issue #1: Whether or not the evidence was sufficient to display that the defendant had specific intent to kill.
Yes because the circumstantial evidence showed that the inferences were reasonable and possible. The defendant was in a vehicle with another person who possessed a loaded gun and fled the scene without being suspected of any crime. He also refused to stop on multiple orders, continued to point the gun at the officer and never voluntarily surrendered his gun. These evidence was enough to display his intent to kill.
Issue #2: Whether or not the defendant’s statement during arrest was admissible.
Yes. A statement is admissible when it is voluntarily made. The defense did not argue that the statement was involuntary.
Issue #3: Whether or not the defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s improper statements in closing arguments.
No. Even though the prosecutor’s statements were improper, by stating the "entire defense is a sham, It's staged," and "lies came from the defense table," they would not affect the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. At trial, the judge did instruct the jury that they were to weigh the evidence. Therefore, the defendant was not prejudiced.
